NDP Leadership 79

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
NDP Leadership 79

V

Issues Pages: 
KenS

KenS wrote:

Mulcair isnt going to be called a sovereignist by the Cons or the MSM.

And you have to stop thinking that this is an argument as in a court of law or a seminar room.

It's simple:

We WILL be vulnearble on the Clarity Act and the SD. And thats with our supporter universe... not the Cons base who are not part of the discussion.

Winning that is not going to be easy. And if Mulcair is Leader there will be no need to label or even imply him a sovereignist. Or appear to be opposed to Quebec [in the ROC]. The popular predisposition is towards the Clarity Act. It just makes sense to most people. The Liberals crafted it well as a wedge.

CanadaApple wrote:

Okay KenS, you've suggested two things over the past few threads (both the leadership threads, and the one about SD you yourself made). One is that no matter who the NDP picks as leader, they are going to be attacked on the SD in relation to the CA. Two is that you think Mulcair is vulnerable to the attack. I'm not sure if you think he is the most vulnerable, but you have pointed him out instead of any other specific candidate (that I have seen, anyway). Yet you have also said you think the attack will be "managable". However, I don't think you've said how it can be managable, or which candidate running you think would be the best at doing so.

Maybe you don't know, and that's fine since I don't either. But it's just seem to me that if you're going to such great lengths to point out a problem, you should have some idea about the solution.

Fair challenge.

And one I was thinking along the lines of while doing the mindless chores.

Mainly that I did not start into the subject with Mulcair in particular in mind. And that I would like to get back to the challenge this poses to all the leadership candidates.

As you'll see- I don't really know where this goes. But launching into Mulcair's amplified vulnerability around this skips over posing the general problem as clearly as possible.

To that end, I would like to see Unionist do that textual comparison and interpretation of the Clarity Acts and the Sherbrooke Declaration.

 

KenS

I've always been quite aware of the essential conflict between the two documents.

And I have always known the broad support the Clarity Act enjoys in the ROC.

But how MUCH of a challenge this is going to be for the new Leader, I had not really thought of before I read that 'warning shot' editorial that I posted.

So the whole picture is still more or less new to me.

But I'm curious how much all of it is largely new to babblers- whether or not the Clarity Act and SD are in essential conflict, how popular the CA is in the ROC, reverberations between that and our standing in Quebec..

KenS

Here is a relatively straightforward question that could be put to all the candidates.

It has been suggested that the Sherbrooke Declaration contradicts the Clarity Act. Do you think this is true? We know that Canadians outside of Quebec know very little about the Sherbrooke Declaration and its implications. How will you approach this?

Never underestimate a policticians ability to answer a challenging question with safe platitudes- especially when they have some time to think about it.

But I dont think there is a safe way to escape the first question.

The easy way out is to say there is no contradiction. But let alone what many members and supporters in Quebec think, it would come as a surprise to some of our MPs

 

nicky

In the rush to criticize Mulcair as "anti-labour" because of his stand against reinstituting the carve-out, the other side of that coin has been overlooked.

Brian Topp and his backers attempted to circumvent the convention's decision abolishing the carve-out. In my view they were were acting in a highly cynical and undemocratic fashion for his political advantage.

Do any of you who criticize Mulcair on this issue care to comment on Topp's behaviour?

KenS

You have mischaracerised the criticsm of Mulcair, which was addressed in the last thread.

I dont care to re-visit your theories about what Topp was up to, that thankfully have not been seen for at least dozens of threads.

In both cases, like I already said about the criticsms of Mulcair: this is a long time ago now. Do I have to explcitly spell out that at this point it is irrelevant? Which others have said as well.

I guess this gets re-started when someone casually calls Mulcair 'anti-union'. Other than the thin skins, I doubt anyone pays the slightest attention to the charge.

nicky

An interesting Tweet from James Laxer:

 

  @jameslaxer James Laxer Eight good candidates for NDP leadership, but few policy differences. Best choice for 2015 looks like Mulcair.#ndpldr

 

I thought he had come out for Nash. Has he changed his mind?

JeffWells

nicky wrote:

An interesting Tweet from James Laxer:

 

  @jameslaxer James Laxer Eight good candidates for NDP leadership, but few policy differences. Best choice for 2015 looks like Mulcair.#ndpldr

 

I thought he had come out for Nash. Has he changed his mind?

 

I don't think so. I posted tweets from Laxer months ago in which he supported Mulcair.

nicky

You're right JW, it was Gordon Laxer.

 

nicky

Greater Toronto area union supports Thomas Mulcair

United Association Local 46 endorses Mulcair leadership campaign

January 19, 2012

TORONTO - Today a key Toronto-area union, the United Association Local 46 representing plumbers, steamfitters and welders in the GTA, announced their support for NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair in his bid for the leadership of the New Democratic Party of Canada. UA Local 46 represents over 7,000 building trades workers in Greater Toronto.

Political Action Committee Chair Bill Signal explained "Tom is known as a leader who will stand up for ordinary people, not just the well-connected insiders. That's the kind of leadership our membership wants."

"The NDP is poised for its first real shot at forming a government. The party can't afford to slide backwards right now. The party needs someone who can lead an NDP wave across the GTA in the next election, the way we saw in Quebec in the last election. And that leader is Tom Mulcair."

Mulcair added: "I thank Bill and all the members of UA Local 46 for their support. The building trades are critical here in Toronto and I look forward to strengthening our relationship in the coming years."

United Association Local 46 is the latest in a long and growing list of prominent support for Mulcair's campaign including former Governor General and NDP Premier of Manitoba Ed Schreyer, Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver and 35 sitting members of the NDP's parliamentary caucus.

Other labour leaders supporting Mulcair include President of the PEI Federaiton of Labour Carl Pursey, former President of the Ontario Federation of Labour Wayne Samuelson, former President of the BC Federation of Labour Art Kube, former President of the Alberta Federation of Labour Reg Basken and former Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress and National Director of one of Canada's largest unions Michael Fraser.

Lord Palmerston

KenS wrote:
Almost no one calls Mulcair 'anti-union'. The issue has been taken is both the nature of the cheap shot, and maybe questioning of political judgement, in his campaigning opening 'I'll stand up to unions' positioning.

Thank you Ken, hopefully this will put an end to this "How can you accuse Mulcair of being anti-union when all these unions are endorsing him?" line.  

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
The "notable progressive political economists," like Nash and Topp, understand the historical need for social democrats to carve out some support for the welfare state, but folks on Mainstreet today are expecting some answer to the need for growth of the pie, not just its distribution. They are becoming more protective of their portion, out of fear, and they respond to the siren song of the right. We have to reassure them that social democrats are about more than re-distribution. Three people have made excellent arguments for this in this thread. They are all calling for a better understanding of the economics of growth than New Democrats have offered in the past.

And recognition of the dual nature of the Canadian economy and making proposals for dealing with that, as Mulcair has done. does not fit any "orthodox" economic model that I know of. In fact it can only make old "firewall Steve" very uncomfortable. :)

First of all the "notable progressive economists" I speak of include such people as Mel Watkins, Andrew Jackson and Jim Stanford, not "Nash and Topp."

And I missed the compelling arguments that Mulcair made for moving beyond just "redistributing the pie" and actually talking about "growing the pie" (and the platitudes of Martin Singh don't count!)

 

JeffWells

Reading [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/stewart-lee-david-ca... Lee's satiric critic[/url] of David Cameron's call for the British film industry to support more "commercial" ventures, made me think, as much does, of the NDP leadership race. That is, analagously, it can be fatal, and a failure of political imagination that is evident to all, to presume  what will appeal to an electorate and craft a "blockbuster" candidate accordingly. The public can see through that kind of box office calculus and it can blow up badly in a party's face. Ignatieff is an obvious recent example, but there was also "Golden Boy" Turner. Martin probably fits as well. It's a little difficult to perceive them this way now, but Trudeau and Chretien were outside-the-box hits for the Liberals.

This isn't meant as a slam of any candidate, or of Mulcair in particular. (He's currently my second choice.) It's just a caution against cynically searching for a formula for electability. IMO, what we need to find foremost is a leader whose project has merit and an authenticity that resonates, even if he or she doesn't look like a leader Canadians have seen before.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Here's the kind of hyperbole I think Ken is worried about:

http://westislandgazette.com/bluenotes/27761

dacckon dacckon's picture

Nathan Cullen gains the support of two mps.

I'm sure Peggy's green cities/jobs plan was posted, but I don't remember any dicussion on it.

 

And an interesting article from abroad that I wanted to add in for fun Cool

 Edit: I've never heard of Rick Blue, but I have to state that he is probably the stupidest columnist of the year. He doesn't even discuss what the S.D. is, just goes into typical conserva-shit-rambling mode.

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:

Brian Topp and his backers attempted to circumvent the convention's decision abolishing the carve-out. In my view they were were acting in a highly cynical and undemocratic fashion for his political advantage.

A very fair question. I've been looking for an answer for months. My problem is, although I was a delegate at the 2006 Quebec City convention when the amendment must have been passed, I missed it. Was I out of the hall when the debate took place? Did it go through with no debate? (Hard to believe.) The Ontario party held a convention in 2007 when we could have abolished it too; we didn't. When Howard Hampton announced his resignation June 14, 2008, there was briefly some chat about abolishing the affiliate vote for his successor. It did not happen. But I don't remember anyone saying "the federal party has abolished it, we should too." So it took me by surprise.

But it's hard to believe Brian Topp missed it. Yet it took until around Sept. 7 for the federal executive to say "the 2006 amendment settles the question." Why? I'd love to know.

Here's the Ontario constitution:

Quote:
(a) Every member is entitled to cast a ballot for the election of the Leader. (b) The ballots cast by Party members shall be weighted to a total of 75% of the votes counted in a Leadership election, and the balance, 25% of the votes counted in a Leadership election, shall be allocated among the affiliated members. (c) At every regular convention that is not a leadership convention, a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If a majority of the voting delegates supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote. (d) The Leader will be chosen by secret ballot. Candidates for the leadership with the fewest number of weighted votes will drop off the ballot in subsequent rounds until one candidate receives a majority of the total weighted votes cast in that round. Other leadership selection procedures will be determined by Provincial Council.

http://ontariondp.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CONSTITUTIONFINALUPD...

By the way, for fans of socialist preambles, the Ontario NDP constitution says:

Quote:
It will endeavour to establish in this province a government whose object shall be to substitute economic planning for irresponsible control with all its unjust consequences and thereby to give maximum opportunity for public, co-operative, and private enterprise to contribute to the development of our province. To this end we will invite the cooperation of all persons who are dedicated to the extension of freedom, the abolition of poverty and the elimination of exploitation.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Michelle wrote:

I would be very disappointed were Mulcair to give up his French citizenship due to political pressure. I'm no fan of Mulcair, as you all know, but that is a completely bogus attack on him.

Layton was 100% wrong when he said what he said about Dion, and I too said so at the time. I totally believe Mulcair when he says now that Jack told him once that he wished he hadn't said that, by the way, too. Not only is it inconsistent with other things Jack believed, but it was widely criticized at the time.

I sincerely hope that Mulcair comes out swinging, and doesn't give in. I'm a dual citizen myself, and it would be awfully hard not to see it as a betrayal of the Canadian ideals I chose if he gave up his French citizenship.

Bravo.

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Clearly Hunky_Monkey loves Mulcair.  Well, gotta respect such unquestioning devotion. 

Yes... I have a huge crush on him, don't you know? (eyeroll)

I don't think any of the candidates are perfect. I don't find any of them light my fire in ways some have in the past. But I think Mulcair stands head and shoulders above the other candidates in so many ways.

And "bringing the centre to the NDP" was what Jack Layton started to do. It's how we reach out and how we talk to Canadians. The only candidate that I see wishing to really continue the path Jack Layton put us on is Thomas Mulcair.

doofy

I guess it's not a surprise that I agree with HM.

Here is my thinking:

None of the candidates are presenting inspirational policy. Besides, can anyone remember a single Jack Layton policy from 2003?

Yet, Mulcair is best positioned to win in 2015. (Even some of his adversaries on this board admit it). Some of the candidates w/ the most "policy" (i.e. Dewar) are completely unelectable under any circumstances  and should withdraw from the race. Others, like Topp & Nash, have so far demonstrated limited ability "to sell" their policy (Peggy Nash getting a postive review from Thomas Walkolm is not good enough. Watch her interview on the clarity act)

If you can't win elections, your policy is virtually meaningless. The Liberals are no longer the party of Lester Pearson; they would rather work with the Conservatives in a minoirty situation than with the NDP. I can't think of a better example than in 2004, when Paul Martin didn't bother talking to Jack Layton until it was literaly five minutes to midnight.

Since Mulcair isn't a Tony Blair (very strongly opposed the war in Afghanistan) or even a Gary Doer (opposed unfettered oil sands development), I'll take my chances w/ him, even if the other candidates offer a greater # of policy papers.

 

 

Gaian

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Quote:
The "notable progressive political economists," like Nash and Topp, understand the historical need for social democrats to carve out some support for the welfare state, but folks on Mainstreet today are expecting some answer to the need for growth of the pie, not just its distribution. They are becoming more protective of their portion, out of fear, and they respond to the siren song of the right. We have to reassure them that social democrats are about more than re-distribution. Three people have made excellent arguments for this in this thread. They are all calling for a better understanding of the economics of growth than New Democrats have offered in the past.

And recognition of the dual nature of the Canadian economy and making proposals for dealing with that, as Mulcair has done. does not fit any "orthodox" economic model that I know of. In fact it can only make old "firewall Steve" very uncomfortable. :)

First of all the "notable progressive economists" I speak of include such people as Mel Watkins, Andrew Jackson and Jim Stanford, not "Nash and Topp."

And I missed the compelling arguments that Mulcair made for moving beyond just "redistributing the pie" and actually talking about "growing the pie" (and the platitudes of Martin Singh don't count!)

 

You miss all sorts of things, LP, BEGINNING WITH THE COMMA after economists,{The "notable progressive political economists," like Nash and Topp,} so that, amazingly enough, Nash and Topp are not included in their number.I assumed that nobody posting here would expect one of their fellow posters to be so ignorant of their party and world. As well, for many months now, Mulcair has spoken of the need to correct the economic imbalance of Canada that leans heavily in favour of the western commodites, so much so that eastern manufacturing industries now find themselves at a loonie exchange disadvantage. It has been a subject for discussion in Quebec, that realizes it is heavily indebted, and is part of the "package" with which he and Jack brought Quebec's social democrats as a "block" out of the hands of the Bloc. You perhaps saw the Quebec unemployment figures that I posted, covering the last three months?

I'll try and find the posting,made just last week.

Bärlüer

I think the whole union carve-out thing has very little to do with what Mulcair's stance toward unions might be.

Of greater relevance, perhaps, might be the misleading comments he made as Minister of the Environment in 2005 about the wages earned by bus drivers. He basically made misleading comments about bus drivers earning between 80 000 and 100 000$ (whereas the mean salary was 48 000$ and only a handful of drivers managed to make more than 80 000$ by accumulating a shitload of overtime) and used that as a (fictional) wedge issue to justify not increasing investment in public transit.

I wouldn't say that is evidence of "anti-unionism", but it does evince a disparaging attitude toward workers.

Unionist

Excellent, Bärlüer - where did you dig that up?? I don't even recall that statement of his from the time, and I'm supposed to watch this kind of stuff!Laughing

Yes, that's exactly the kind of statement which may show a person's nature, even if he was serving the anti-worker Charest government at the time. The business about the union carve-out is a diversion. I'm a unionist (duh), and as I've said, I oppose any special status for unions in a political party.

Someone should confront Mulcair, today, with what he said in 2005, and ask him whether he thinks overpayment of workers is a hindrance to improving urban and transit infrastructures and other necessary services of the society. I'd love to hear his answer.

 

socialdemocrati...

So now the biggest criticisms against Mulcair aren't that he's anti-union. It's that he has poor political judgment in how he handled the issue.

How do you quantify or qualify "poor political judgment"?

- He wins elections.
- He wins endorsements. From unions.
- He wins support. From members.
- He gets favorable media coverage.
- He polls well. Outside and inside the party.

Of course, you can spin all that around.

- Taking a riding from 15% NDP to 55% NDP doesn't prove his viability in the ROC.
- Unions are notoriously self-hating.
- Endorsements are just insiders.
- The media still fundamentally hates the NDP, and will turn on him.
- The only polls we have are flawed.

... and most importantly...

- Past/present success is not indicative of future success.

I'll be the first to say that the "electability" argument is actually a discredit to Mulcair's other great qualities. It's also insulting to the viability of a *few* of the other candidates, who could *potentially* poll better with the proper exposure.

But still... what kind of evidence do you have to show that Mulcair mishandled the union issue, when Topp took the opposite position and got nothing but negative coverage for his trouble, when a ton of unions went ahead and endorsed Mulcair anyway, and when there isn't a chance in hell that this guy won't easily cruise to (at least) the second last ballot?

The counter-argument to that would be this: that Mulcair is very clever at playing the game, but this shows he's anti-union.

But that would be the complete opposite of where the argument has gone in the past 24 hours.

(edited. not taking the bait.)

wage zombie

So there is discussion again about "growing the pie" vs "distributing the pie".  People are saying we need to talk more about "growing the pie" and less about "distributing the pie".  I strongly disagree with this idea.

We are not having pie growth problems.  We are having pie distribution problems.

It is a fact that the pie has grown steadily over the last few decades, but that extra pie has gone solely to the people at the top.  Any potential new pie that appears is also slated to go to the people at the top.

How is more pie going to help us when it never gets passed around?

I think we need to spend MORE time working on pie distribution.  And if people think pie distribution strategies aren't sellable, well clearly we need to put effort into figuring out how to make them sellable.

Lord Palmerston

Gaian wrote:
 You miss all sorts of things, LP, BEGINNING WITH THE COMMA after economists,{The "notable progressive political economists," like Nash and Topp,} so that, amazingly enough, Nash and Topp are not included in their number.I assumed that nobody posting here would expect one of their fellow posters to be so ignorant of their party and world.

I forgot that you are babble's pre-eminent intellectual.  What do you expect from a member of "The Great Unread"?

Quote:
As well, for many months now, Mulcair has spoken of the need to correct the economic imbalance of Canada that leans heavily in favour of the western commodites, so much so that eastern manufacturing industries now find themselves at a loonie exchange disadvantage. It has been a subject for discussion in Quebec, that realizes it is heavily indebted, and is part of the "package" with which he and Jack brought Quebec's social democrats as a "block" out of the hands of the Bloc. You perhaps saw the Quebec unemployment figures that I posted, covering the last three months? I'll try and find the posting,made just last week.

Now for the more serious part of your post.  I look forward to seeing these Quebec unemployment figures.  If you think Stanford, Jackson, Watkins, etc. merely talk about "redistribution" and not "growing the pie."  Stanford talks a lot about the financial system and distribution (for instance his book Paper Boom).  

I actually do think the level of intellectual debate in the party has deteriorated as compared to the 1980s, with the Laxer report, the report on banks, etc., where there was serious talk of some sort of socialist/social democratic response to the post-Keynesian era.  However most of this "production not just distribution" has morphed into a right-wing critique, that says the problem is the party is good at "soft" things like social programs but not the hard-nosed economic management.   So the solution is being more conciliatory to business etc.

Nash's economic plan seems to me be the most critical of markets, and has called for more economic planning/industrial strategy as is the case in Germany, Finland, etc.  

http://peggynash.ca/2012/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PeggyNashANewDirecti...  

 

Lord Palmerston

doofy wrote:

I guess it's not a surprise that I agree with HM.

Here is my thinking:

None of the candidates are presenting inspirational policy. Besides, can anyone remember a single Jack Layton policy from 2003?

Yet, Mulcair is best positioned to win in 2015. (Even some of his adversaries on this board admit it). Some of the candidates w/ the most "policy" (i.e. Dewar) are completely unelectable under any circumstances  and should withdraw from the race. Others, like Topp & Nash, have so far demonstrated limited ability "to sell" their policy (Peggy Nash getting a postive review from Thomas Walkolm is not good enough. Watch her interview on the clarity act)

If you can't win elections, your policy is virtually meaningless. The Liberals are no longer the party of Lester Pearson; they would rather work with the Conservatives in a minoirty situation than with the NDP. I can't think of a better example than in 2004, when Paul Martin didn't bother talking to Jack Layton until it was literaly five minutes to midnight.

Since Mulcair isn't a Tony Blair (very strongly opposed the war in Afghanistan) or even a Gary Doer (opposed unfettered oil sands development), I'll take my chances w/ him, even if the other candidates offer a greater # of policy papers.

Except for the dig at Peggy Nash, I agree with most of this.  Mulcair is probably the most "electable."  And he is better than Tony Blair and Gary Doer.  I just have other criteria in my decision.  

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything.

Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution".

Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

AnonymousMouse

Interesting.

Quote:

As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-t...

NorthReport

My hunch is that all these stupid attacks on Mulcair's dual citizenship, both from supporters of other leadership candidates, as well as right-wingers, is helping to increase his support amongst the rank and file NDP members who will be the ones deciding the results of this leadership race.

And apparently Layton regretted the remarks he made about Dion's dual citizenship to boot.

 

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/01/leadership-2012-roun...

Howard

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Interesting.
Quote:
As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.
">http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-t...

This is Mulcair's most substantive policy statement to date. What do babblers think? Also, how does it compare to other candidates' plans/statements on women's equality?

NorthReport

It's huge.

And let's tackle the lack of representation from the visible minorities as well.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

 

To that end, I would like to see Unionist do that textual comparison and interpretation of the Clarity Acts and the Sherbrooke Declaration.

 

My pleasure:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar... Declaration vs. Clarity Act[/url]

dacckon dacckon's picture

Mulcair has a great proposal, he should take extra care to inform the media(as it will attack him over this) that such things are the norm in places like Sweden(let me know if Im wrong).

 

Speaking of Sweden, let us be reminded of what would happen if we picked a leader that gets embroiled in scandals.

TheArchitect

Former Burnaby—Douglas MP Bill Siksay is endorsing Brian Topp.

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/former-bc-mp-bill-siksay-backs-topp-lead-ndp

Howard

Howard wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Interesting.
Quote:
As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.
">http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-t...

This is Mulcair's most substantive policy statement to date. What do babblers think? Also, how does it compare to other candidates' plans/statements on women's equality?

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

AnonymousMouse

Unionist wrote:

KenS wrote:

 

To that end, I would like to see Unionist do that textual comparison and interpretation of the Clarity Acts and the Sherbrooke Declaration.

 

My pleasure:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar... Declaration vs. Clarity Act[/url]

That's quite impressive that you had that on hand.

Your textual comparison is wrong, however.

On Quebec's right to secede, the Clarity Act says that there's no right for the LEGISLATURE to UNILATERALLY secede while the Sherbrooke Declaration says Quebec's people (i.e. through a direct vote) have the right to decide the succession question. There notonly isn't a contradiction here, these are both references to two different sides of the Quebec Secession decision of the Supreme Court that found that provinces do have the right to secede, but that decision must be made through a direct referendum and the terms of secession must be negotiated.

Likewise on the clear majority question. The phrase "clear majority" does not mean a majority of more than 50%+1--the term for a majority of more than 50%+1 is a "super-majority". The "clear majority" means "it must be clear that there is a majority". The Supreme Court was again very clear in its decision that "clear majority" referred to questions like fraud and error in voting and the court explicitly refused to state whether it meant there had to be a majority greater than 50%+1.

The much more important point, in my opinion, is that I think it is very difficult to argue that the Clarity Act does anything to reduce the chance that Quebec will separate form Canada. In fact, I think it makes secession only more likely.

Hunky_Monkey

Howard wrote:

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

Easy. It will be a hashed out for the 2015 platform by the party.

He doesn't put a massive amount of detail, he gets nailed. If he did, he'd get nailed by the same people who would complain it's undemocratic.

AnonymousMouse

Howard wrote:

Howard wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Interesting.
Quote:
As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies—and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.
">http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/22/mulcair-announces-proposal-t...

This is Mulcair's most substantive policy statement to date. What do babblers think? Also, how does it compare to other candidates' plans/statements on women's equality?

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

This is a typical policy backgrounder.

Look at Peggy Nash's backgrounder on the same subject. Very similar in style and organization. If anything, more vague. And in Nash's there doesn't even appear to be anything new.

http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-releases-5-point-plan-for-achieving-...

Most of this--in both cases--is a regurgitation of party policy.

The take away from Mulcair's announcement, as with his others, is the idea highlighted in the press release--in this case appoint 50% women to government boards as done in Quebec.

Unionist

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Most of this--in both cases--is a regurgitation of party policy.

How scandalous. A would-be party leader, regurgitating party policy. Imagine that.

 

Howard
Gaian

I keep learning about Quebec through press releases. Now I know that not only is Quebec friendlier for low-wage working mothers, but it has in place policy aimed at developing equity in government offices: "SAINT-HYACINTHE – NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair announced the latest policy proposal of his 2012 leadership campaign today, alongside his Quebec Campaign Co-Chair , Marie-Claude Morin, and NDP Women’s Caucus Chair, Djaouida Sellah. Under Mulcair’s proposal, an NDP government would adopt the gender equity policy already in effect in Quebec with regard to public appointments.

“As Prime Minister, I would commit to appointing women to fill 50% of all positions on the Board of Directors of Crown corporations and government agencies — and I’d use the office of Prime Minister to challenge the private sector to do the same.” Mulcair said.

“Today’s announcement only reinforces what we know about Tom’s commitment to women’s equality. Here in Quebec we know Tom has been fighting to advance women’s rights for over twenty years since his days as President of the Quebec Professions Board when he took on the difficult issue of stopping sexual misconduct by medical professionals.” said Sellah, MP for Saint-Bruno – Saint-Hubert and NDP Women’s Caucus Chair."

Leadership races are clearly needed to keep us more fully informed about Canada. This has been a wonderful learning experience for this Canuck. Can't wait for the revelations to come in the next two months.

Wilf Day

"In a fundraising letter this week, the deputy NDP leader said Quebec remains key to the party's hopes of winning the next general election in 2015. Mr. Mulcair said he wants to raise $30,000 by Sunday, with all of the money being directed to the membership blitz."

I already knew this. Lydia Treadwell said last Tuesday, in her awesome fundraising pitch, that she needed $3,500 for a newpaper ad for this blitz. And some lower amount for a radio ad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-lau...

I didn't get the e-mail. I'm not yet supporting Mulcair, although I may decide to. But I've been saying that I would have made a donation to the federal party if they had asked for money for a membership campaign.

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."

dacckon dacckon's picture
Gaian

Quote: "I look forward to seeing these Quebec unemployment figures. If you think Stanford, Jackson, Watkins, etc. merely talk about "redistribution" and not "growing the pie." Stanford talks a lot about the financial system and distribution (for instance his book Paper Boom)."

-------------

January 16, 2012 - 8:47am
#43 (permalink).

A piece in Friday's Globe Business Report poiints out that Quebec's jobless rate is suddenly soaring, pointing to the need for New Democrats to advance a solution to economic malaise.

"It's almost as if the recession has cought up with Quebec. Economists are at a loss to explain why the province, which limped through the slump but didn't suffer the extent of job losses as elsewhere in Canada, is suddenly seeing deep cuts...While a single month of job losses could be dismissed as a statistical blip, three consecutive months of declines - from October to December at a cost of almost 70,000 positions - can't be...Its unemployment rate has risen to 8.7 per cent from 7.3 per cent in September, above the nationalaverage and the highest in more than two years...

"A confluence of factors appear to be at play, from still-weak U.S.demand to the wind-up of government spending on infrastructure and global challenges slamming the provinces forestry and manufacturing sectors...some say a high cost of doing business is another key factor. Unit labour costs or the costs of producing here, with wages of $25 or $30 an hour, is not as viable for these businesses as it used to be, because of technology and emerging markets," said one economist.

Still to come, federal government plans to cut "thousands of public sector jobs" in the Ottawa-Gatineau area.

"Numbers so far suggest Quebec has stalled, not fallen into a recession. The province grew just 1.3 per cent in the third quarter of last year at an annualized rate, compared with an annual rate of 3.5 per cent for all of Canada...The weakness is centered in the private sector. Five months of head-count declines in the private sector amount to 103,000 positions, the worst drop ever, according to Stefane Marion, chief economist at National Bank of Canada."
-----

There you go, M'lord. The business pages of the Globe are very useful in understanding the political scene. The separation of politics and economics was always a very arbitrary act of mathematics dominated schools of economics (with results we keep witnessing) :) .

And while Jim Stanford is occasionally asked to write a column for the Globe, his work is really about maintaining a healthy economic climate for the not-so-big Three automakers in Canada. The fact that he "talks a lot about the financial system and distribution" is explained by that Eastern Canadian manufacturing fact. But CAW is now facing the bloodiest bargaining in its history, the loss of high wages and benefits. And that is in large part a result of a petro-dollar on par with the greenback, together with a globalized world economy. Ontario could lose all of those plants in a heartbeat with the current ideologues in power, and it's going to take recognition of that threat to steer a safe economic course for the next while, concern for the big picture.

KenS

AnonymousMouse wrote:
KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

 

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything. Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution". Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

If anyone cares:

And how is it you "know" that [bolded part]. Its not in the Mulcair release. What you 'know' is definitely an interpretation [minimum point]. On top of that, its a faulty interpretation.

What Mulcair's release says is that it is expanding beyond the 700 emitters covered in 'existing legislation'.... legislation is what the government does. And the government legislation does not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions, and no figure is mentioned in Mulcair's release.

The 50% of emissions is what the NDP's existing plan covers.... the 700 emitters covered in the government legislation Mulcair's skimpy release referrs to do not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions.

 

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Howard wrote:

My initial impression is that there are several good ideas in there but they are poorly organised and developed. Among the charges one could level is the inevitable: how are you going to pay for x? Also, does Mulcair really think he can get away with one bullet point on childcare and call that a plan for a national system?

Easy. It will be a hashed out for the 2015 platform by the party. He doesn't put a massive amount of detail, he gets nailed. If he did, he'd get nailed by the same people who would complain it's undemocratic.

Thin excuse.

There is only one person for sure who complains it is undemocratic.

Wilf Day

Wilf Day wrote:

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."

Someone? Anyone?

Gaian

Jesus, the never-ending stories about the member from Outremont.

Gaian

quote: "We are not having pie growth problems. We are having pie distribution problems.

It is a fact that the pie has grown steadily over the last few decades, but that extra pie has gone solely to the people at the top. Any potential new pie that appears is also slated to go to the people at the top.

How is more pie going to help us when it never gets passed around?"
-----

The blessed pie is no longer growing.You know, 2008 and all that? In fact, it is threatened with shrinkage, globally. And in eastern Canada, the increasing ranks of unemployed suggest the portions are going to be very thin for a bit. :)

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

 

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything. Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution". Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

If anyone cares:

And how is it you "know" that [bolded part]. Its not in the Mulcair release. What you 'know' is definitely an interpretation [minimum point]. On top of that, its a faulty interpretation.

What Mulcair's release says is that it is expanding beyond the 700 emitters covered in 'existing legislation'.... legislation is what the government does. And the government legislation does not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions, and no figure is mentioned in Mulcair's release.

The 50% of emissions is what the NDP's existing plan covers.... the 700 emitters covered in the government legislation Mulcair's skimpy release referrs to do not cover anywhere near 50% of emissions.

 

First of all, I know that the ~700-750 biggest polluters in the country (known as Large Final Emitters) are responsible for approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, because I heard Jack Layton say it about a hundred times, but a ten second Google search produces other sources such as this one.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/media_archive/press/2005/050716_b_e.htm

Second, Mulcair's press release doesn't refer to existing legislation--I think you're thinking of a line from the accompanying backgrounder.

Third, existing legislation does cover Large Final Emitters. It's just that the Conservative government has chosen not to USE that legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (more specifically I believe they have published regulation, but based on intensity targets, not hard caps). This was a major issue back when Stephane Dion Minister of the Environment. The Liberals made the point that existing legislation already gave them the power to cap GHGs from LFEs, but it is a power not a requirement which is why the Cons could just as easily choose not to regulate GHGs (or regulate them in a half assed way).

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2005/2005-07-16/html/notice-avis-en...

Gaian

Wilf Day wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

So I just donated $200.00 to his campaign.

If Lydia was here, she would say "hands up all those who will do the same."

Someone? Anyone?

Couldn't do $200 but I managed $75 on Friday. It's a long way to this year's tax returns. :)

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

Thin excuse.

There is only one person for sure who complains it is undemocratic.

Excuse? No, it's an explaination. If he went any further, I'm sure you'd complain that it was too detailed :)

He's made a commitment to a national childcare system. Could you list the specific details you think he should have published during a leadership campaign?

Pages

Topic locked